Kaye Grogan
Left PUNCH ... now right PUNCH Mr. President!
By Kaye Grogan
Well, Mr. President — now that you've thrown a left punch at the liberal Democrats for blatantly challenging your reasons for the Iraqi invasion, it's time to give them your best PUNCH!
Sock it to em' with the RIGHT now!
First, let's look at some of the hypocrisy of the nay-sayers who are squealing the loudest about the invasion in Iraq, starting with a long list of prominent Democrats. In a letter in 1998 under the Clinton Administration (before President Bush was elected), an eminent air strike of specific sites in Iraq was endorsed and encouraged by Senators: Joe Lieberman, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Milulski and several more. My how quickly they forget that there is a trail left behind to embarrass them when they start to point fingers!
Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright stated in 1998: "Saddam's goal . . . is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not, and we will not let him succeed."
General Wesley Clark in 2002 stated that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous threat and added that Hussein had chemical and biological weapons and has had them in his possession for a long time.
Clinton's former Secretary of Defense William Cohen in 2003 stated: "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons. I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."
Senators Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy — well they are a lost cause — so moving right along . . .
John Edwards in 2002 stated: "The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."
Perhaps, the most important statement made about Saddam Hussein and his WMD's came from Bill Clinton: "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."
Okay, now that I've pointed out a few of the prominent Democrats and their views related to Saddam Hussein and his threat to the world with his weapons of mass destruction, it's obvious as a wart on a toad's behind, that President Bush didn't act as the Lone Ranger in his decision to deploy troops to Iraq. He had lots of intelligence reports, and backing from many, who are now trying to backpedal from their previous stance.
Sorry folks . . . it doesn't work that way. If you want to rant and rave about how the president misled the American people invading Iraq, first look in the mirror. You should see a coward and a person who will go to any lengths to not accept responsibility for their own actions looking back at you.
Many countries in the U.N. had the same intelligence as the United States, concerning the belligerent, arrogant, warmonger Saddam Hussein and his WMD's, but several were caught up in the food-for-oil scandal, and they refused to be a party to invade Iraq, and take Hussein down. Naturally, they weren't going to interfere with their "oil sugar daddy" and help dethrone him.
I believe when all is said and done: Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden may have been co-conspirators as close as two links in a chain with the terrorist attacks on America. Surely, the two conversed about something besides the weather during their talking sessions.
It's refreshing to see the president come out of his deep sleep and challenge the untruths the liberal Democrats are spreading across the country concerning the mission in Iraq.
Yes, Mr. President . . . it's time to count one-two-three! ...and give em' the ole right PUNCH for a knockout!
And that's just my opinion!
© Kaye Grogan
Well, Mr. President — now that you've thrown a left punch at the liberal Democrats for blatantly challenging your reasons for the Iraqi invasion, it's time to give them your best PUNCH!
Sock it to em' with the RIGHT now!
First, let's look at some of the hypocrisy of the nay-sayers who are squealing the loudest about the invasion in Iraq, starting with a long list of prominent Democrats. In a letter in 1998 under the Clinton Administration (before President Bush was elected), an eminent air strike of specific sites in Iraq was endorsed and encouraged by Senators: Joe Lieberman, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Milulski and several more. My how quickly they forget that there is a trail left behind to embarrass them when they start to point fingers!
Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright stated in 1998: "Saddam's goal . . . is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not, and we will not let him succeed."
General Wesley Clark in 2002 stated that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous threat and added that Hussein had chemical and biological weapons and has had them in his possession for a long time.
Clinton's former Secretary of Defense William Cohen in 2003 stated: "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons. I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."
Senators Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy — well they are a lost cause — so moving right along . . .
John Edwards in 2002 stated: "The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."
Perhaps, the most important statement made about Saddam Hussein and his WMD's came from Bill Clinton: "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."
Okay, now that I've pointed out a few of the prominent Democrats and their views related to Saddam Hussein and his threat to the world with his weapons of mass destruction, it's obvious as a wart on a toad's behind, that President Bush didn't act as the Lone Ranger in his decision to deploy troops to Iraq. He had lots of intelligence reports, and backing from many, who are now trying to backpedal from their previous stance.
Sorry folks . . . it doesn't work that way. If you want to rant and rave about how the president misled the American people invading Iraq, first look in the mirror. You should see a coward and a person who will go to any lengths to not accept responsibility for their own actions looking back at you.
Many countries in the U.N. had the same intelligence as the United States, concerning the belligerent, arrogant, warmonger Saddam Hussein and his WMD's, but several were caught up in the food-for-oil scandal, and they refused to be a party to invade Iraq, and take Hussein down. Naturally, they weren't going to interfere with their "oil sugar daddy" and help dethrone him.
I believe when all is said and done: Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden may have been co-conspirators as close as two links in a chain with the terrorist attacks on America. Surely, the two conversed about something besides the weather during their talking sessions.
It's refreshing to see the president come out of his deep sleep and challenge the untruths the liberal Democrats are spreading across the country concerning the mission in Iraq.
Yes, Mr. President . . . it's time to count one-two-three! ...and give em' the ole right PUNCH for a knockout!
And that's just my opinion!
© Kaye Grogan
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
